# Satya Prakash v. State

- **Citation:** (2016) 7 ILRA 789
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-07-20
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satya-prakash-v-state-44212
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Service Law-Recruitment-Statutory Rules-Commencement-Effect- Group 'D' Employees Service
Rules, 1985 providing that Rules shall "come into force at once" held operative from date of notification i.e.
16.03.1985-Subsequent publication does not postpone enforceability-Rules applicable to all selections made
thereafter. (Paras 12, 13, 14)
Service Law-Appointment-Illegality-Non-compliance with statutory Rules- Selections made
without following prescribed procedure under applicable Rules held illegal and void-Appointments made after
enforcement of Rules but in breach thereof cannot be sustained-Cancellation of such appointments justified.
(Paras 14, 19)
Service Law-Irregularity vs. Illegality- Non-observance of mandatory recruitment procedure under
statutory Rules not a mere irregularity but goes to root-Appointments made dehors Rules liable to be set
aside-(Paras 3, 14)
Equitable Relief-Recovery of Salary- Where appointments were illegal but employees not guilty of
fraud or misrepresentation and irregularity attributable to employer-Recovery of salary received during
service would be inequitable-Particularly in case of lower cadre employees-Recovery barred on principles of
equity and good conscience. (Paras 15, 18)
790 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

In Result- Cancellation of appointments upheld; however, recovery of salary and benefits received by
petitioners disallowed. (Paras 19, 20)

Cases cited

Chiraunji Lal Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others
Brij Bhushan Chaudhary and others Vs. State of U.P.
State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)
Syed Abdul Qadir Vs. State of Bihar
Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana1995 Supp. (1) SCC 18
Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India(1994) 2 SCC 521
Union of India vs. M. Bhaskar(1996) 4 SCC 416
V. Ganga Ram vs. Director(1997) 6 SCC 139
B.J. Akkara vs. Government of India(2006) 11 SCC 709
Purshottam Lal Das & Ors. vs. State of Bihar(2006) 11 SCC 492
Punjab National Bank Vs. Manjeet Singh(2006) 8 SCC 647
Bihar SEB Vs. Bijay Bahadur(2000) 10 SCC 99

## Text

7 All. Satya Prakash Vs State
789
seek a mandamus either to command respondents to renew lease of land in question in his favour or
to convert his lease rights into freehold rights.

29. We, therefore, find no merit in both these writ petitions.

30. Dismissed.

31. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

32. No costs.
-----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.07.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.

Writ A No.- 15550 Of 1985
&
Connected With Other Cases

Satya Prakash ...Petitioner
Versus
State ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Vipin Sexena

Counsel for the Respondent:
S.C.
Service Law-Recruitment-Statutory Rules-Commencement-Effect- Group 'D' Employees Service
Rules, 1985 providing that Rules shall "come into force at once" held operative from date of notification i.e.
16.03.1985-Subsequent publication does not postpone enforceability-Rules applicable to all selections made
thereafter. (Paras 12, 13, 14)
Service Law-Appointment-Illegality-Non-compliance with statutory Rules- Selections made
without following prescribed procedure under applicable Rules held illegal and void-Appointments made after
enforcement of Rules but in breach thereof cannot be sustained-Cancellation of such appointments justified.
(Paras 14, 19)
Service Law-Irregularity vs. Illegality- Non-observance of mandatory recruitment procedure under
statutory Rules not a mere irregularity but goes to root-Appointments made dehors Rules liable to be set
aside-(Paras 3, 14)
Equitable Relief-Recovery of Salary- Where appointments were illegal but employees not guilty of
fraud or misrepresentation and irregularity attributable to employer-Recovery of salary received during
service would be inequitable-Particularly in case of lower cadre employees-Recovery barred on principles of
equity and good conscience. (Paras 15, 18)
790 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

In Result- Cancellation of appointments upheld; however, recovery of salary and benefits received by
petitioners disallowed. (Paras 19, 20)

Cases cited

Chiraunji Lal Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others
Brij Bhushan Chaudhary and others Vs. State of U.P.
State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)
Syed Abdul Qadir Vs. State of Bihar
Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana1995 Supp. (1) SCC 18
Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India(1994) 2 SCC 521
Union of India vs. M. Bhaskar(1996) 4 SCC 416
V. Ganga Ram vs. Director(1997) 6 SCC 139
B.J. Akkara vs. Government of India(2006) 11 SCC 709
Purshottam Lal Das & Ors. vs. State of Bihar(2006) 11 SCC 492
Punjab National Bank Vs. Manjeet Singh(2006) 8 SCC 647
Bihar SEB Vs. Bijay Bahadur(2000) 10 SCC 99

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vipin Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Yatindra,
learned standing counsel for the respondents.

SUBMISSIONS:-

2. These writ petitions were heard together on 18.07.2016 and facts as well as submissions
of learned counsels for the parties, were noted as under:

"Heard Sri Vipin Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri
Yatindra, learned standing counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the facts and controversy
involved in all the above noted writ petitions, are similar in nature and, therefore, they may be
heard together. Considering the aforesaid statement, these writ petitions are heard together with
the consent of the learned counsel for the parties treating the Writ Petition No.15550 of 1985 as the
leading writ petition.

In paragraph-6 of the leading writ petition, it is stated that pursuant to the
Government Order dated 31.10.1984, the District Selection Committee was constituted and steps
were taken to prepare the list for filling up the vacancy. In paragraph-7 of the said writ petition, it
is stated that the petitioner of the said writ petition, was registered in the employment exchange
and from where he received intimation to appear for interview on 27.03.1985 on which date, he
appeared and a list of successful candidates was pasted on the Notice Board on 28.03.1985 in
which the name of the petitioner finds mention. In paragraph-8 of the said writ petition, it is stated
that by order dated 18.04.1985, the Regional Employment Officer, Agra intimated the petitioner
7 All. Satya Prakash Vs State
791
about his appointment in the office of the District Employment Officer, Etah as a peon in the payscale of Rs.305-5-330 EB-6-360- EB-6-390 on purely temporary basis. It is stated that the
petitioner appeared and he was issued an appointment letter dated 18.04.1985. In paragraph-9, it
is stated that on 25.04.1985, the petitioner appeared before the Employment Officer, Etah and
produced the relevant documents and he was appointed. In paragraph-14, it is stated that the
District Magistrate, Etah issued directions by letter dated 23.09.1985 for termination of services of
the employees who were appointed prior to coming into force of the Rules dated 16.03.1985.

Aggrieved with the termination order dated 23.09.1985, the petitioners have filed
the present writ petitions.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the appointments were made
strictly in accordance with the provisions of the G.O. dated 31.10.1984. The Rules called "The
Group 'D' Employees Services Rules 1985" dated 16.03.1985, were published on 31.08.1985. Thus,
they come into force on 31.08.1985. Therefore, the appointments made prior to the coming into
force of the aforesaid Rules, shall not be effected by the provisions of these Rules. He further
submits that the Rules are prospective in nature and, therefore, they cannot be applied
retrospectively. He also submits that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners
before terminating their services.

Learned standing counsel submits that Rule 1(2) of the Rules provides that the
Rules shall come into force immediately. The Rules are dated 16.03.1985 and as such, they came
into force immediately, i.e. w.e.f. 16.03.1985. Publication of the Rules in the Gazette on a
subsequent date, cannot prevent its operation effective from 16.03.1985. He further submits that
G.O. dated 31.10.1984 provides merely for constitution of District Level Committee, but the
manner and mode of the selection etc. are to be governed by the Rules. The relevant Rules for the
purpose are the aforesaid Rules of 1985 effective from 16.03.1985. Since the selections were made
without following due procedure of law and the petitioners were allegedly appointed on 18.04.1985
while the Rules came into force on 16.03.1985 and as such, the cancellation of selection/
appointment of the petitioners, is wholly valid.

Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for adjournment to make his submissions
on the question of coming into force of the Rules of 1985.

As prayed, put up on 20.07.2016 for further hearing."

3. Today, Sri Saxena submits that non-observance of the Rules in recruiting the petitioners
in accordance with the government order, was merely an irregularity and for that reason, the
selection and appointment of the petitioners cannot be said to be illegal or void. He further submits
that since no fraud was practised by the petitioners to obtain the employment and as such merely
because recruitment was not made in accordance with the Rules in force, neither post retirement
benefits to those employees who have retired, can be denied nor salary received by the petitioners
during continuance of interim order can be recovered. In support of his submissions, he relies upon
792 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

a decision in the case of Chiraunji Lal Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2012) 3 UPLBEC
2072 (para-22).

4. Sri Yatindra, learned standing counsel submits that the government order dated
31.10.1984 merely provides for constitution of committee, preparation of a list by that committee
and to send it to the employment exchange. It does not provide for any recruitment or the procedure
for recruitment. He further submits that the relevant Rules are Subordinate Officers, Ministerial
Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules 1985, dated 16.03.1985. As per Rule 1(2) of the Rules, the Rules
shall be deemed to have come into force at once. He, therefore, submits that the Rules came into
force w.e.f. 16.03.1985 which provide detailed procedure for recruitment including qualification
and advertisement inviting applications, which has not been followed. The selection of the
petitioner took place subsequent to the coming into force of the Rules and they were allegedly
appointed on 18.04.1985 and as such the appointment of the petitioners being without following
due procedure of law, is null and void. With regard to the enforceability, he submits that since the
Rule 1(2) of the Rules provides that it shall come into force w.e.f. 16.03.1985. In support of his
submissions, he relies upon a Full Bench judgment of Brij Bhushan Chaudhary and others Vs.
State of U.P., 2002 (2) ALJ 1907 (FB) (Para-60 & 61).

Questions for Determination:-

5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and with their consent,
the following questions are framed for determination to resolve the controversy involved in these
writ petitions:

(i) Whether the relevant Service Rules for recruitment became operative from
16.03.1985 inasmuch as Rule 1(2) of the Rules provides that "the Rules shall come in force at
once" ?

(ii) Whether appointments of petitioners on 18.04.1985, were illegal due to nonobservance of the Rules and, therefore the same were cancelled lawfully?

(iii) Whether State Government is entitled to recover salary and other benefits from
the petitioners which were received by them during the pendency of the writ petition?

6. Since the facts and controversy involved in these writ petitions, are similar and therefore
with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, Writ-A No.15550 of 1985 is treated as a
leading writ petition and the facts thereof are being noted.

FACTS OF THE CASE:-

7. Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that according to the petitioner, pursuant to a
circular dated 30.10.1984; a District Selection Committee was constituted in District Etah to fill up
vacancies of class-IV employees. The petitioner was registered with the employment exchange. He
7 All. Satya Prakash Vs State
793
received intimation from the employment exchange requiring him to appear for interview on
27.03.1985. On 28.03.1985, a list of successful candidates, was pasted on the notice board. It is
alleged in paragraph-8 of the writ petition that by order dated 18.04.1985 issued by the Regional
Employment Officer, Agra, the petitioner was appointed in the office of the District Employment
Officer. It is alleged in paragraphs- 9 & 10 of the writ petition that on 25.04.1985, the petitioner
appeared before the Employment Officer, Etah, along with relevant documents and he was
appointed as a peon in the said department and since then, he is working as a peon. In paragraph11, it is stated that to the utter surprise of the petitioner, a notice was pasted on the notice board
intimating that the selection list has been cancelled by the District Magistrate and the proceedings
for selection will now be started from 01.07.1985. It is alleged in paragraph-14 that on 23.09.1985,
the District Magistrate issued directions to all the departments including the department of the
petitioner that under the directions of Government, the service of the candidates may be terminated
forthwith since all the selections made, were illegal as they were not in conformity with the Service
Rules.

8. The respondents took the stand that directions were issued by the State Government for
constitution of District Selection Committee mentioning that the Rules shall be sent separately. The
Rules were framed by the State Government which came into force w.e.f. 16.03.1985. The
Committee was mistakenly constituted before the Rules were enacted. It is stated in paragraph-4 of
the counter affidavit that the constitution of committee and selection made in contravention of the
Rules, were illegal and irregular, and the same were pointed by the then District Employment
Officer, Etah to the District Magistrate, Etah and on this basis, the District Magistrate cancelled the
list prepared by the District Selection Committee. In paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit, it is
stated that the District Selection Committee and the Rules both ceased to operate in view of the
decision of the State Government communicated by Radiogram dated 24.06.1986, that
appointments shall now be made by the Departmental Selection Committee. The contents of
paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit has been admitted by the petitioners in paragraphs-5 of the
rejoinder affidavit but it is stated that the circular dated 01.07.1986 shall not apply to the petitioner
which made it clear that vacancies existing upto 30.06.1986 shall be made from the list prepared by
the District Selection Committee.

DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS:-

9. The Group 'D' Employees Service Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Group 'D'
Rules') and the Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Ministerial Staff Rules'), both provide for sources of recruitment, qualifications,
physical fitness, character, marital status, procedure for recruitment, procedure for selection and
procedure for promotions and appointment. Both the Rules also deal with seniority and pay scale.
Rule-2 of the Ministerial Staff Rules provides for application of the Rules. As per this provision,
these Rules shall govern recruitment to all the ministerial posts of the lowest grade other than the
post of stenographer, in all subordinate offices under the control of the Government excluding the
Uttar Pradesh Secretariat , the Offices of the State Legislature, Lok Ayukt, Public Service
Commission, High Court, the Sub-ordinate courts under the control and superintendence of High
794 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Court, the Advocate General, Uttar Pradesh, and of the establishments under the control of the
Advocate General. Rule 4(g) of the Ministerial Staff Rules defined the words "Ministerial Staff" to
mean the clerical staff of the sub-ordinate offices, which is required to be appointed by direct
recruitment.

10. Rule 2 of the Group 'D' Rules provides for application of the Rules. It provides that
the Rules shall apply to all Group 'D' posts referred to in Rule 6 in all the sub-ordinate offices as
defined in clause (h) of Rule 4. Rule 6 provides for source of recruitment to various categories of
Group 'D' posts as under:

"6. Sources of recruitment.- The sources of recruitment to the various categories of
Group 'D' posts shall be as follows:

(a)
Peon, Messenger, Chaukidar, Mali,
Farrash, Sweeper, Waterman/ Bhisti,
Tindal, Thelaman, Record Lifter and
every other non-technical post.

By direct recruitment,

(b)

Peon-Jamadar

By promotion from amongst
peons.

(c)

Daftri/
Bookbinder/
Cyclostyle
Operator,

By promotion from amongst
qualified peons, Messenger
and Farrashs

(d)

Farrash Jamadar

By promotion from amongst
permanent Farrashs

(e)

Sweeper Jamadar

By promotion from amongst
permanent Sweepers

(f)

Head Mali

By promotion from amongst
permanent Malis

Provided that where no eligible suitable candidate is available for promotion to a
particular post which is required to be filled by promotion, the post may be filled by direct
recruitment."

11. Clause-h of Rule 4 defines the words "Subordinate Offices" as under:
7 All. Satya Prakash Vs State
795
"(h) "Subordinate Officers" shall refer to all the offices under the control of the
Government, excluding the Secretariat, Offices of State Legislature, Lok Ayukt, Public Service
Commission, High Court, Subordinate Courts under the control and the superintendence of the
High Court Advocate General and the establishments under the control of the Advocate General-"

12. Thus the Group 'D' Rules were applicable for recruitment to the various categories
of Group 'D' posts as mentioned in Rule-6. The Ministerial Staff Rules shall apply to the clerical
staff of the subordinate offices as provided in Rule 4(g) read with Rule 2 of the Ministerial Staff
Rules. Rule 1(2) of the Group 'D' Rules reads as under:

"They shall Come into force at once."

13. Since the Group 'D' Rules provide for coming into force at once and as such the Rules
became operative from the date of notification, i.e. 16.03.1985.

Questions No. (i) Whether the relevant Service Rules for recruitment became
operative from 16.03.1985 inasmuch as Rule 1(2) of the Rules provides that "the Rules shall
come in force at once"?

AND

Questions No. (ii) Whether appointments of petitioners on 18.04.1985, were
illegal due to non-observance of the Rules and, therefore the same were cancelled lawfully?

14. The Group 'D' Rules enacted by the State Government vide Notification No.20/3/82-IPersonnel-2-85 dated 16.03.1985 came into force at once as per Rule 1(2). It provides complete
procedure for recruitment. The Rules were in force on 27.03.1985 when the petitioners allegedly
received a letter from the Employment Exchange for interview, on 28.03.1985 when a list of
successful candidates was allegedly pasted on the notice board and also on 18.04.1985 when they
were allegedly appointed. Thus procedure for recruitment as provided in the Rules including the
procedure for selection and preparation of list under Rules 19 and 21, were not followed.
Consequently, the appointment of the petitioners were not valid since they were appointed without
following due procedure of law. Under the circumstances, I do not find any good reason to interfere
with the impugned orders.

Question No. (iii) Whether State Government is entitled to recover salary and
other benefits from the petitioners which were received by them during the pendency of the
writ petition?

15. It is not the case of the respondents that illegalities in the appointments of the
petitioners was on account of any fraud, collusion or fault of the petitioners. There was no
misrepresentation on the part of the petitioners to obtain appointments. Appointments made in
breach of Rules, were the result of mistake of the respondents which was not even within the
796 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

knowledge of the petitioners. The respondent No.1 has not taken any action against the officers
who mistakenly made the appointments without following the Rules. The respondents filed counter
affidavit along with stay vacation application dated 27.10.1986 but the order sheet shows that they
never pursued their stay vacation application. Thus, on the peculiar facts of the present cases, I do
not find it equitable to permit the respondents to recover salary and other benefits received by the
petitioners during the period they worked/ remained in employment.

16. In the case of State of Punjab and others etc. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)
ETC. (2015) 4 SCC 334, Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the principles of equity and good
conscience in recovery of payments mistakenly made by employer from employees belonging to
class-III and class-IV service (Gorup 'C' and Group 'D' Service) and held as under:

"7. Having examined a number of judgments rendered by this Court, we are of the
view, that orders passed by the employer seeking recovery of monetary benefits wrongly extended
to employees, can only be interfered with, in cases where such recovery would result in a hardship
of a nature, which would far outweigh, the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover. In
other words, interference would be called for, only in such cases where, it would be iniquitous to
recover the payment made. In order to ascertain the parameters of the above consideration, and
the test to be applied, reference needs to be made to situations when this Court exempted
employees from such recovery, even in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India. Repeated exercise of such power, "for doing complete justice in any cause"
would establish that the recovery being effected was iniquitous, and therefore, arbitrary. And
accordingly, the interference at the hands of this Court.

8. As between two parties, if a determination is rendered in favour of the party,
which is the weaker of the two, without any serious detriment to the other (which is truly a
welfare State), the issue resolved would be in consonance with the concept of justice, which is
assured to the citizens of India, even in the preamble of the Constitution of India. The right to
recover being pursued by the employer, will have to be compared, with the effect of the recovery
on the concerned employee. If the effect of the recovery from the concerned employee would be,
more unfair, more wrongful, more improper, and more unwarranted, than the corresponding
right of the employer to recover the amount, then it would be iniquitous and arbitrary, to effect
the recovery. In such a situation, the employee's right would outbalance, and therefore eclipse,
the right of the employer to recover.

9. The doctrine of equality is a dynamic and evolving concept having many
dimensions. The embodiment of the doctrine of equality, can be found in Articles 14 to 18,
contained in Part III of the Constitution of India, dealing with "fundamental rights". These
Articles of the Constitution, besides assuring equality before the law and equal protection of the
laws; also disallow discrimination with the object of achieving equality, in matters of
employment; abolish untouchability, to upgrade the social status of an ostracised section of the
society; and extinguish titles, to scale down the status of a section of the society, with such
appellations. The embodiment of the doctrine of equality, can also be found in Articles 38, 39,
7 All. Satya Prakash Vs State
797
39A, 43 and 46 contained in Part IV of the Constitution of India, dealing with the "directive
principles of State Policy". These Articles of the Constitution of India contain a mandate to the
State requiring it to assure a social order providing justice - social, economic and political, by
inter alia minimizing monetary inequalities, and by securing the right to adequate means of
livelihood, and by providing for adequate wages so as to ensure, an appropriate standard of life,
and by promoting economic interests of the weaker sections.

10. In view of the aforestated constitutional mandate, equity and good
conscience in the matter of livelihood of the people of this country, has to be the basis of all
governmental actions. An action of the State, ordering a recovery from an employee, would be in
order, so long as it is not rendered iniquitous to the extent, that the action of recovery would be
more unfair, more wrongful, more improper, and more unwarranted, than the corresponding
right of the employer, to recover the amount. Or in other words, till such time as the recovery
would have a harsh and arbitrary effect on the employee, it would be permissible in law. Orders
passed in given situations repeatedly, even in exercise of the power vested in this Court under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India, will disclose the parameters of the realm of an action of
recovery (of an excess amount paid to an employee) which would breach the obligations of the
State, to citizens of this country, and render the action arbitrary, and therefore, violative of the
mandate contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern
employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer,
in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above,
we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the
employers, would be impermissible in law:

(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or
Group C and Group D service).

(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within
one year, of the order of recovery.

(iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a
period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.

(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to
discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have
rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.

(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if
made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would
far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover."
(emphasis supplied by me)
798 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

17. In the case of Syed Abdul Qadir Vs. State of Bihar (2009) 3 SCC 475 (Para-58),
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any
rights in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from
the hardships that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the
employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly
paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the
matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any
particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. Similar views have also been
expressed by Hon'ble Suprement Court in Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp. (1) SCC
18, Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 521, Union of India vs. M. Bhaskar,
(1996) 4 SCC 416, V. Ganga Ram vs. Director, (1997) 6 SCC 139, B.J. Akkara vs.
Government of India (2006) 11 SCC 709, Purshottam Lal Das & Ors., vs. State of Bihar,
(2006) 11 SCC 492; Punjab National Bank Vs. Manjeet Singh, (2006) 8 SCC 647, and Bihar
SEB Vs. Bijay Bahadur (2000) 10 SCC 99.

18. Considering the facts of the case of the petitioners, the findings recorded in Para-15
above and the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore-noted judgments, I find that it
would be iniquitous, more unfair and unwarranted to permit the respondents to recover the
payments made to the petitioners for the period they worked/ remained in employment.

19. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order cancelling appointment of the petitioners,
is upheld. However on facts, it is directed that salary and other benefits received by the petitioners
from the respondents shall not be recovered from them.

20. All the Writ Petitions are disposed of and interim orders are vacated. There shall be no
order as to costs.
-----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.07.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE SHAMSHER BAHADUR SINGH, J.

Writ C No.- 16115 Of 2002

Upbhokta Sanrakshan Evam Awas Vikas Samiti ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
C.B. Yadav, Dhruv Agarwal, Kshitij Shailendra, Manu Khare, Monu Agarwal, Nikhil Agarwal, Shwetashwa
Agarwal